Approach and Methods
SAPA overview, process and outputs
The SAPA Assessment uses a mixed methods approach that combines qualitative data and quantitative data to gather information, assess results and generate ideas for action in response to the findings.
Throughout the SAPA process, there is an emphasis on linking the steps to stakeholder engagement, either through discussions, or feedback, or actions to improve the situation. This ensures that stakeholders, including communities through their representatives, are effectively engaged throughout the assessment.
This multi-stakeholder approach increases the accuracy and credibility of the findings, enhances transparency and ownership of the assessment process, builds support for action and accountability for implementation. For those interested, much greater detail can be found in the SAPA manual Franks, Small, and Booker (2018).
Preparation
Feasibility and planning
Following discussing with Soysambu Conservancy management, it was agreed that Soysambu met the feasibility requirements for a SAPA process. Soysambu began operating in 2007. It was Protected or Conserved Area that was established and operating with management and governance systems for at least two years. Furthermore, Soysambu Conservancy satisfies the second feasibility criterion as its managers and other key stakeholders can convene for face-to-face meetings at least once during the assessment process. Additionally, there is a clearly defined zone covering Soysambu and its neighboring communities. Finally, the managers of Soysambu were willing to implement specific action plans aimed at improving social impacts and governance within the conservancy.
In order to plan the SAPA process, together with the Soysambu management, the Sustain East Africa team put together a work plan with dates for key steps in the SAPA process, and those responsible for organising the step, and where relevant, inviting stakeholders, such as community representatives to participate.
Community Mapping
The aim of community mapping is to ensure that all stakeholders within or neighbouring the conservancy are considered during the SAPA process.
Soysambu Conservancy provided a detailed map delineating its boundaries and essential physical features such as roads, rivers, and Lake Elementeita. This map also included the locations and boundaries of communities within and surrounding the conservancy.
Following a meeting and exploratory visit with Soysambu management and representatives from neighbouring communities in September 2023 it was decided that this SAPA would focus on key neighbouring villages within the Oljorai, Kiptangwanyi, and Mbaruk locations, as well as those living within Soysambu.
Furthermore, at this stage of the process, some of the questions that would be specifically tailored to the Soysambu context were formulated.
While many of these raised issues that were already aligned with standard assessment questions, some were articulated as additional queries in the household questionnaire.
Review existing information
At this stage, Soysambu Conservancy provided reports and meeting minutes from previous community engagements and projects. These were carefully reviewed to gain a comprehensive understanding of pertinent background details that a site profile could be formed. In turn, this allowed us to ensure that we were able to ensure that the most appropriate positive and negative social impacts and measures of well-being were being covered in the assessments; that a sufficient number of households would be sampled; and that the assessment would be suitable to the cultural context.
Stakeholder Engagement
Finally, each location was visited, and the assessment was discussed with the Administrative Chief from the location. This in turn led to introductions to the heads of village. At this stage, the survey team was able to understand the local context, ensure that community representatives were willing to participate in group discussions, and to secure permission to carry out the household surveys.
Scoping
The scoping phase of SAPA is dedicated to defining the assessment’s boundaries concerning space, time, and issues, prior to delving into detailed information gathering.
In terms of space, the villages and locations that had been visited and consulted were already set.
In terms of time, the SAPA primarily addresses social impacts that have occurred in the past, rather than those anticipated in the future. For this assessment, a recall period of five years was selected.
SAPA covers various social impact and governance issues. The standard aspects of assessment include:
- The impact of Soysambu and its development activities on people’s well-being.
- Identification of significant negative and positive impacts resulting from Soysambu and associated conservation and development initiatives.
- Evaluation of the recognition and respect of local women’s and men’s rights by Soysambu.
- Assessment of timely access to pertinent information by local women and men.
- Examination of the effectiveness of measures to mitigate negative impacts on local women and men.
- Evaluation of the equitable distribution of benefits related to Soysambu within and between local communities.
However, even these aspects of the assessment might overlook important issues. To address this, as part of the scoping step, a community meeting and stakeholder workshop is conducted. Furthermore, the household survey and the second community meeting are also designed to identify other potential gaps that may exist.
First community meeting and stakeholder workshop
In November 2023, the Sustain team conducted a half-day workshop with community stakeholders, including 19 participants representing location chiefs, village representatives, and enumerators recruited from the communities.
The workshop aimed to familiarize participants with the SAPA methodology and upcoming household survey questions. It also gave representatives a chance to raise any outstanding issues that were not being asked about.
This workshop plays a vital role in ensuring the SAPA’s relevance to local needs, active participation of the key stakeholders, and fostering ownership of the process among key stakeholders.
Information Gathering
The next step in the process was to gather information through a household survey. This was then followed once more by a discussion and feedback in a stakeholder workshop and community meeting. This balanced approach combines quantitative data from surveys with qualitative insights from community meetings and stakeholder workshops.
Planning the household survey
The household survey was the key step to collecting quantitative data from across the key locations in a statistically representative manner. Based on timelines, budgets, and the number of villages to cover, we agreed to interview 180 households, randomly selected from the target area’s villages.
Therefore, out of 44 villages identified as important, across the 3 selected locations, 18 villages were randomly chosen for the survey. Within each of these 18 villages, a minimum of 10 households were to be randomly selected.
The sampling plan was devised based on information from the most recent national census, information from Administrative Chiefs, accessibility of locations, estimated survey duration and enumerator requirements.
Location | No. of Respondents | % of total |
|---|---|---|
Mbaruk | 81 | 45% |
Oljorai | 70 | 39% |
Soysambu | 20 | 11% |
Kiptangwani | 10 | 5% |
Developing household questionnaire
The SAPA facilitation team crafted a series of questions to be piloted, then tested them with the enumerators, before being deployed in the household survey.
The survey incorporated Soysambu-specific social impacts, governance issues, that were informed by concerns raised during reconnaissance visits and reports from the Soysambu Conservancy team. Furthermore, custom governance questions and statements were developed key governance principles of conserved areas which address rights, participation, transparency, impact mitigation, and benefit sharing.
The survey was initially drafted in English, it was then translated into Swahili. A back-translation process to English ensured accuracy and that the intended meaning was correct. Adjustments based on feedback from the pilot survey, training process, and Soysambu Conservancy management were incorporated, and the final questionnaire was uploaded to the Open Data Kit (ODK) and Kobo Toolbox for enumerator use during the survey.
Enumerator Training
In order to ensure that data collection is of the highest standards, the SAPA process relies on proficiently trained enumerators, capable of conducting efficient and accurate surveys.
Therefore, 3 enumerators were recruited from within the survey locations, based on their proficiency in English and Swahili, their good standing in the community, and the fact that they had at least completed high school.
In November 2023, the SAPA facilitation team conducted a two-day training sessions which included a detailed run through of all the questions, the information the survey was to capture, and why this was important. The enumerators were trained in the use of ODK and Kobo Toolbox. The training also included a review of survey and research ethics, and appropriate behaviour before and after the survey.
The enumerators conducted practice interviews, focused on comprehension and questionnaire adjustments.
Following successful completion of the training, the enumerators were equipped with smartphones, battery banks, notebooks, and backpacks. They were clearly instructed on the sampling approach with each enumerator allocated six villages and instructed to randomly sample 10 households from each village.
As a final step in the training, the enumerators conducted pilot interviews with acquaintances. The data from these were reviewed and analysed and the enumerators were given feedback on their performance.
Conduct Household Survey
As discussed above, the sample size include 18 randomly selected villages, where a total of 10 households were surveys. In total, 181 households were sampled, over three weeks from November 20th to December 6th, 2023.
Sampling locations included the following 8 villages from Mbaruk: Kiwanja Ndege Mkulima, Leleshwa, Pema, Mbaruk, Muranga, Kiambogo, Echareria, and Mololine.
7 villages from Oljorai: Kapkures, Ngatta, Kelelwa, Oldubey, Kapedo, Central Utut, and Kampi Turkana.
From Kiptangwani only Jogoo village.
Soysambu loaction was made up of 4 settllements at Jolai 1,2, Sleeping Warrior Gate, Jolai Gate and Soysambu Area.
Each survey began with an explanation of the purpose of the survey, how data would be used, confidentiality measures, the participant’s rights, and sought their consent before proceeding.
Following each survey, the respondent was given a small token of appreciation in the form of sugar.
As the survey was being conducted, the facilitation team made random calls to 11% of all respondents to verify that the survey had taken place, to ask for any comments or feedback, and to ensure that the information provided was correct.
No negative feedback or concerns regarding the data collection process were received.
Figure 1: Map of Soysambu with sample sizes from each locations
Analyse Household Survey
The first step in data analysis was to ensure that there was anonymity. Therefore, in adherence to the Data Protection Act, 2019, identities and numbers collected from respondents was removed. This ensured that all data collected from respondents was handled anonymously, and that no individually identifiable information pertaining to race, health status, ethnic social origin, conscience, belief, genetic data, bio-metric data, property details, marital status, family details, sex, or sexual orientation were shared.
The next steps were to use design based inference in R, with the survey and srvyr packages to calculate population proportions, standard errors and 95% confidence intervals based on the sample data collected.
The results from these are presented as tables, graphs, maps, and percentages in the following section.
Assessing
Second community meeting and stakeholder workshop
The final stages of the SAPA process involve conducting a second stakeholder workshop, where key findings from the household survey are shared with representatives of key stakeholders. Any questions raised during the workshop are addressed, and actionable ideas are presented.
This workshop serves firstly as a review and validation that the data collected are likely to reflect the realities on the ground, and secondly as a further information-gathering opportunity. The insights gathered as part of this discussion can help assist in mitigating negative social impacts, promoting equitable distribution of positive impacts, and enhancing governance within the protected area.
At the second workshop in Soysambu, the focus was on discussing additional ideas for ways in which Soysambu could provide positive social benefits to the community, that were not sufficiently captured in the survey responses.
These ideas, detailed below, encompassed community activities, initiatives by Soysambu Conservancy management, and greater collaboration with local, regional, or national government entities.
Taking Action
Communicate results
Following the conclusion of Soysambu Conservancy’s SAPA, it is crucial that the findings are effectively communicated to all relevant stakeholders. This includes not only the conservancy management team but also local communities, government authorities, NGOs, and other interested parties. This has been partly achieved through the second workshop discussed above.
However, beyond this, clear and transparent communication of the assessment results will help foster understanding, build trust, and encourage collective action towards addressing identified issues.
In communicating the results, it is essential to use accessible language and diverse communication channels to reach different stakeholders effectively. This may include community meetings, workshops, newsletters, social media platforms, and formal reports. As was the case for the second workshop discussed above, engaging in further dialogue sessions where stakeholders can ask questions and provide feedback on the assessment findings will improve understanding and ownership of the process.
Plan actions and monitor progress
Looking ahead, it is important that an action plan to address the identified issues is put in place. This should outline specific strategies, activities, timelines, responsibilities, and resources required to implement interventions.
As was brought up in the second stakeholder workshop, community representatives called for greater collaboration with local, regional, or national government entities. Therefore, it will be important to ensure that the conservancy management, local communities, government agencies, and potentially other relevant NGOs, are involved in the action planning process. This will ensure some ownership, prioritising, and commitment to the proposed interventions.
Once an action plan is in place, it will be essential to establish mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating progress. By continuously monitoring progress, Soysambu Conservancy can adapt its strategies and interventions to meet evolving social needs and ensure the sustainable management of the protected area.
Findings
Characteristics of the respondents
Household head’s gender, age, and average number of children
The SAPA household survey resulted in a sample of 181 households, with 113 men and 68 women participating. As the Figure 2 below shows, across all surveyed locations, the number of male respondents exceeded the number of women, with the greatest gender disparity in respondents found in the communities living within Oljorai (see Figure 2 below). Mbaruk on the other hand, had a more balanced gender balance compared to other locations, with 54% male and 46% female participants.
Other household characteristics, including the mean age of the household head, and the average number of children per household, also varied across the surveyed locations, as shown in the table 2 below. Oljorai stood out with the highest mean number of children per household, while Mbaruk had the lowest. Mbaruk also had the highest mean age of the household head, contrasting with Kiptangwanyi, which had the lowest. Soysambu and Kiptangwanyi showed similar mean ages of the household head, but Soysambu had a slightly higher mean number of children.
Figure 2: Gender of respondents
Location | Mean no. of children | Mean age of household head |
|---|---|---|
Kiptangwanyi | 2.5 | 46.8 |
Mbaruk | 1.8 | 54.1 |
OlJorai | 3.6 | 47.0 |
Soysambu | 3.2 | 45.3 |
Principal livelihoods of the households
Residents surrounding Soysambu Conservancy engage in various economic activities, each with distinct needs. To the south, adjacent to Soysambu, are pastoralist communities. Along the Pipeline-Elementaita road, there exists a satellite urban settlement area where minimal agriculture is practiced. The northern region comprises a mix of satellite urban communities and pastoralists, while the area along the Nakuru road towards Gilgil is predominantly occupied by smallholder farmers.
However, as we can see in Figure 3 below, for almost all households, cultivation was the principal activity that contributed to the (paid manual labour) were stated in some locations. Finally, in some of the more urbanised areas, people shared that their own business, or a permanent salary (shown as other in Figure 3 below) was the principal livelihood. Figure 21, in the appendix, shows that the second most important livelihood shows greater variability across locations.
Figure 3: Map of principal livelihood activities in surveyed households
How long household heads have been in the area
Part of the survey was to understand the proportion of native-born residents versus migrants in the surveyed locations, by asking the respondents, “Was the household head born in this community?”
The survey results show
All respondents in the Kiptangwanyi location were not born in the community (note that the sample size in Kiptangwanyi was small, see Table 1)
In Mbaruk (90%) and Soysambu (84%)a large percentage of respondents were also not born in the community.
This was different in Oljorai where the majority of respondents were been born in the area (83%), with a minority who immigrated into the area.
Figure 4: Was the household head born in this community?
Wealth of household
Based on a number of variables that were recorded during the survey, a wealth index was constructed. This included whether the household owned assets such as a car, motorbike, television, radio, generator, smart phone, water tank, pit latrine, and whether they used mpesa, the construction material of their house, how often they skipped meals, how many livestock they had, and how large an area they cultivated. Based on a principal component analysis, households were categorised into 5 quintiles, and a map of these is shown in figure 5 below, followed by two key variables in understanding household level wealth, namely how often the household were forced to skip a meal, and the construction material of the walls of their house.
Figure 5: Map showing the distribution of wealth quintiles
Positive Social Impacts
Overall interviewed households generally felt Soysambu had few positive impacts across a number of themes, with only 8-14% proportions of households across themese suggesting that Soysambu had a high positive impact.
Education
- Soysambu conservancy’s initiative to offer sponsorship opportunities for students, enabling access to education and fostering academic achievement, was seen as a positive social impact by some households (19.3%)
- Additionally, Soysambu’s contributions to local schools, such as providing school meals for students, school uniforms, desks, and sports equipment, **positively impact educational outcomes and student well-being (20.4%).*
- The Conservancy also provides free guided educational trips to community members, offering valuable learning experiences and fostering appreciation for conservation efforts, recognised by some households (19.4%).
Health
- Soysambu conservancy’s support for health projects, including the provision of equipment to clinics and cancer screening for women, and contributed to improved healthcare access and outcomes within the community (21.1%).
- Additionally, Soysambu Conservancy also provided anti-rabies vaccinations for dogs and donkeys, demonstrating a commitment to community health, with several households noting the impact (17.9%)
Water
- Soysambu conservancy provides water to the community either through trucks or by building water tanks, ensuring access to clean and safe water for local residents, and this was noted by some households (21.2%)
Infrastructure and utilities
- Soysambu conservancy’s support in building or maintaining infrastructure including police posts, schools, and roads, were reported to enhance the overall quality of life for community members. This was the most noted benefit across all households (25.1%)
Outreach services
- Soysambu conservancy also offered outreach services in the form of training in improved livestock production, health, and waste management, empowering residents with valuable knowledge and skills **(19.1%).*
Environmental Conservation
- Soysambu actively participates in environmental conservation initiatives, such as tree planting, contributing to the preservation of natural resources and biodiversity (21.3%)
- Moreover, Soysambu offers support to bush-clearing workers by providing firewood for free, demonstrating a commitment to employee welfare and community support (21.9%).
Figure 6: Overall positive impacts across all communities
Positive Impacts by Location
The findings of the household survey reveal diverse perspectives across the four locations. When the survey respondents were asked about how important projects previously implemented by Soysambu were to their households.
The majority of respondents from Kiptangwanyi location suggested Soysambu had a low (mean: 43%) or zero (mean: 52%), indicating some impact of Sosyambu, but little major impact across all categories. A significant portion expressed low importance, while only a few acknowledged medium to high importance, particularly concerning water provision and infrastructure development.
In Mbaruk location, respondents indicated that the previously mentioned projects had zero impact on their households (mean: 96.9%), with very few attributing medium to high importance to any of them.
In the Oljorai location, the influence of Soysambu Conservancy on the community appears notably positive (mean: 64%). A majority of respondents affirmed the high importance of all the projects to their households, with a significant number rating them as of medium importance (mean: 24%). Fewer respondents indicated zero importance (mean: 0.4%), while a minimal number expressed low importance
In Soysambu, the findings revealed mixed perceptions among residents of the significance of various projects. While a considerable number regarded most projects as of high importance, some perceived certain initiatives e.g sponsorship opportunities for students and community education programs, as having zero impact to their households. However, health projects, infrastructure, schools and water was nearly all highly impactful. Consequently, the number of respondents expressing medium importance to the projects was minimal.
Figure 7: Positive impacts broken down into separate locations
Figure 8: Positive impacts broken down into separate locations
Figure 9: Positive impacts broken down into separate locations
Figure 10: Positive impacts broken down into separate locations
Feelings of security
This was not across the board, but there were clear results that communities living on Soysambu conservancy felt much more secure than those living outside (100%). Feeling secure is a crucial contributor to well-being:
40% of respondents in Mbaruk felt insecure or very insecure.
90% of respondents in Ol Jorai felt secure or very secure
70% of respondents in Kiptangwanyi felt secure or very secure
Figure 11: How secure do you feel from the risk of theft of your property?
Negative Social Impact
Although Soysambu Conservancy have made recent efforts to build positive relationships with communities within and neighbouring the conservancy, there are still a number of impacts that are having negative impacts on household well-being.
Benefits
- Respondents also said that Soysambu-related benefits are unfairly shared, for example, there was a large concern on limited employment opportunities and a lack of prioritisation in employment within Soysambu (89.5%). This was the largest negative impact cited by communities.
- The second most cited impact was that community members are not involved in development projects (87.4%), including project design and implementation.
- There is also a perceived lack of appreciation from Soysambu Conservancy when they receive assistance from the community, such as when the community assists in putting out fires during dry seasons (74%).
Human-wildlife conflict
- HWC also dominates in the area with perceptions (81%) that wildlife originating from Soysambu is exacerbating tensions and creating challenges for residents. Examples include the damage to crops from monkey, loss off livestock and other property; and some injury of people from buffalo; this resentment is largely linked to a lack of compensation for damage and injury by wildlife from Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) (see below for more details).
Disease
- The findings from discussions with community representatives and the household surveys indicate that transmission of disease from wildlife and livestock in Soysambu to local livestock poses a significant concern for community members with 43% of households indicating it had an impact.
Restriction on access to utilities
- Restricted access to certain public utilities, such as roads, creates barriers to mobility and community well-being. This was an occasionally cited issue by community members (35%).
Access to natural resoources
- Limited access to grazing areas (44%) and restrictions on tree cutting (60%) within Soysambu Conservancy are more minor impacts cited by some community members. residents
Figure 12: Overall negative impacts across all communities
Negative Impacts by Location
Considerable differences in percieved impact exist between locations.
In Oljorai findings suggest that respondents considered nearly all of the highlighted negative impacts as of high importance (mean: 88%), implying a detrimental effect on their household well-being. Fewer respondents felt that the impacts were of mediumm importance while a number of them feel that some impacts were of zero importance for example conflict with wildlife, little grazing access to Soysambu and community not being prioritised in employment by Soysambu
Opinions among respondents in Kiptangwanyi location were varied and slighlty lower (mean: 70%) when it came to negative impacts. A significant majority of respondents highlighted that all negative impacts were of high importance and thus had a lot of impact on their household well-being, except for the restriction of access to public utilities, where most respondents expressed a perception of zero importance.
In Mbaruk negative aspects of Soysambu where the least reported (mean: 60%). There was little negative impact reported around access to roads and access for cutting of trees.
In Soysambu negative aspects of the conservancy where mixed, with almost no households feeling an impact of restrictions on roads or tree cutting. However, there was considerable negative impact reported from conflict with wildlife from Soysambu, and lack of KWS compensation. They also felt they are not involved in development projects or employment opportunities.
Figure 13: Negative impacts broken down into separate locations
Figure 14: Negative impacts broken down into separate locations
Figure 15: Negative impacts broken down into separate locations
Figure 16: Negative impacts broken down into separate locations
Conflict with wildlife
Conflict with wildlife was investigated separately to the above questions. It was reiterated that the majority of Soysambu is now fenced, and hence large herbivores are confined inside Soysambu. More mobile species can still cross the fence. Many conflict cases are not caused by wildlife resident in Soysambu, although people often attribute this to be the case.
Conflict
Based on the results of the household survey, the majority of conflict with wildlife comes from baboons and vervet monkeys, as well as a few others, including porcupines and buffalo. For households who have livestock, hyaenas (not defined which species) were the most frequently cited. Furthermore, across all areas, thankfully less than 1% (0.9%) of households reported that a member of their household was injured or killed by wildlife in the last year
Households reporting that livestock were damaged by wild animals in the last year
Households reporting that crops were damaged by wild animals in the last year
Overall contribution to well-being
In terms of well-being, the survey looked at this from a number of perspectives. Firstly, the respondents were asked about their own overall self-assessed well-being. This was achieved by asking the household head “How’s life?” and explaining that 1 means everything is very bad and 10 means everything is very good.
On average life was reported as being very bad in most locations (mean: 72.4%)
Soysambu had the highest number of people reporting poor well-being (very bad: 98%).
Ol Jorai had the most people reporting a good or very good life (42%).
Figure 17: Responses when asked: How is your life at the moment?
Figure 18: How has the general well-being of your household changed over the last 5 years?
However, despite the lowest reporting wellbeing, Soysambu residents reported they had the greatest increase in well-being in the last 5 years (54%).
Most other areas reported little change to well-being.
Then, once the respondent was asked about the positive and negative impacts of Soysambu conservancy, they were asked if they could take into account all of these impacts discussed, and summarise the overall impact of Soysambu on the well-being of their household. This confirms that Soysambu conservancy have improved their own residents wellbeing in the last 5 years. It also
Figure 19: The impact of Soysambu Conservancy on the well-being of their household
Finally, in order to understand how the impact of Soysambu Conservancy on household well-being is changing over time, the respondents were asked how has the contribution of Soysambu to your household’s well-being changed over the past 5 years?
Figure 20: How has the contribution of Soysambu to your households well-being changed over the past 5 years?
The survey results indicated that the majority of respondents perceived Soysambu’s overall contribution to well-being as neutral, taking into account both positive and negative impacts. There were exceptions, particularly in Kiptangwanyi and Soysambu locations, where a few respondents felt that Soysambu had increased their well-being.
Governance
In the context of the Social Assessment of Protected Areas (SAPA), governance plays a pivotal role, encompassing various aspects such as power dynamics, relational structures, and mechanisms for accountability. Unlike management, governance within SAPA is concerned with decision-making processes, resource allocation, and ensuring the inclusion of all relevant stakeholders in the conservation framework. In this case, it refers to how Soysambu interacts with its surrounding community members. So called “good governance” within SAPA is characterized by: Recognition and Respect for Rights; Full and Effective Participation; Transparency and Access to Information; Mitigation of Negative Impacts. As part of the SAPA process we asked questions about each of these.
Participation in decision-making
Full and effective participation in decision making ensures that all relevant stakeholders are actively involved in the decision-making processes which fosters a sense of ownership and inclusivity.
In the communities of Mbaruk and Oljorai, a significant portion of residents express that they disagreed that they were involved in in decision-making processes that affect their communities.
Conversely, within Soysambu itself, a notable proportion of individuals perceive a degree of participation, particularly in terms of awareness about their community representatives for engagements with Soysambu and the channels available for communication with them.
In Kiptangwanyi, opinions vary, with some residents indicating a lack of participation, others acknowledging its existence, and a considerable number chosing to answer “Don’t know”, when asked about the extent of their involvement in decision-making processes.
Figure 21: Map of survey locations
Level of influence
One key positive result that did emerge from the survey was that most household heads felt that they had medium or high levels of influence on decision making in their communities The percentage of households that said they had medium or high levels of influence in their communities:
Transparency and access to information
Transparency and Access to Information. Facilitating transparency through timely access to relevant information in suitable formats, thereby promoting openness and trust among stakeholders To assess this aspect, respondents were given three statements to react to (see Figure below)
In Kiptangwanyi, Oljorai, and Mbaruk locations, results suggest that a substantial proportion of respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the transparency of information. They felt that there were no meetings with Soysambu, and that they did not have timely access to information about decisions affecting the community made by Soysambu. The results were slightly different in the communities living in Soysambu, where although a significant number of respondents disagreed that there was sufficient transparency, a greater proportion agreed with the statements.
Figure 22: Agree/Disagree on statements about transparency and access to information
Mitigation of negative impact
Mitigation of negative impacts involves implementing effective measures to address any adverse effects on local communities, safeguarding their well-being and interests. This aspect of good governance was assessed through specific statements related to Soysambu and its associated negative impacts, shown in Figure below.
The household survey results show diverse perspectives across locations. In Kiptangwanyi, Oljorai and Mbaruk, most respondents disagreed that an effective system for collecting information on damage caused by wild animals existed, as well a lack of help when serious issues of damage by wild animals did occur. On the contrary, in communities living in Soysambu, the majority agreed with the two statements. This suggests that some strategies do exist, but they are implemented in different ways across the different locations
There was less consensus across Mbaruk, Kiptangwanyi, and Soysambu regarding Soysambu’s use of effective measures to mitigate the negative impacts of the conservancy, with more respondents feeling like there were measures to mitigate negative impacts and crop damage. The exception here was Oljorai where the majority still disagreed that there were any measures in place.
Figure 23: Agree/Disagree on statements about mitigation of negative impacts
Equitable benefit-sharing processe
Equitable benefit sharing in SAPA refers to ensuring that benefits derived from the conserved or protected area are equitably distributed among relevant stakeholders based on agreed-upon targeting options, thus promoting fairness and social justice. This can be slightly tricky in the case of private, conserved land. Therefore, the statements given to respondents sought to gauge the extent to which there was any perceived benefit sharing, and whether the allocation of benefits was gender balanced (see Figure below).
Across Kiptangwanyi, Mbaruk, and Oljorai locations, almost all respondents disagreed with all statements. A minority of respondents in Soysambu agreed with the statements, which suggests that communities living in Soysambu do receive some benefits that other communities do not.
In addition, nearly all respondents believed that women had little influence compared to men in determining the allocaiton of any benefits from Soysambu.
Figure 24: Agree/Disagree on statements about equitable benefit-sharing processes
Right
In SAPA, prioritizing recognition and respect for rights of all relevant stakeholders engaged in protected area management is fundamental to good governance. Once more, it is tricky to study this in the context of private conserved land.
In the survey, respondents were asked whether Soysambu recognizes and respects the rights of local women and men.
In response to the overall statement, in Oljorai and Soysambu, the majority disagreed with this statement, with a few in Mbaruk and Kiptangwanyi expressing similar views.
Conversely, a few respondents in Kiptangwanyi and Mbaruk, as well as most in Oljorai and Soysambu, agreed with the statement When it came to the community’s perceived right to harvest firewood, respondents in Soysambu felt that they had rights to harvest firewood.
There were mixed responses in all other locations regarding law enforcement staff potentially violating the law or local people’s rights, the majority of respondents from Kiptangwanyi, Oljorai, and Soysambu disagreed. This result goes counter to some of the claims that were made in the open ended questions (see section in “From assessment to action” below).
Nevertheless, in Mbaruk, the perception was different as most respondents agreed that there were some violations of their rights.
Figure 25: Agree/Disagree on statements about rights
:::
From assessment to action
To capture suggestions from stakeholders, during the survey, respondents were asked a simple open-ended question: “Are there any other ways, not mentioned, that you think Soysambu could help your community?”. Furthermore, during the second stakeholder workshop, the 33 participants were divided into groups that represented their communities, and were given an opportunity to brainstorm and add further suggestions based on results form the survey tool.
In the following section, we outline the main categories under which these suggestions fall. Here, we outline actionable steps and strategies aimed at enhancing the conservation efforts and social impact management within and around Soysambu Conservancy. Drawing upon the identified challenges and opportunities, these recommendations are drawn from the community members, and seek to foster sustainable practices, improve community engagement, and promote equitable outcomes for all stakeholders involved.
Support for Schools and Education
Soysambu Conservancy has provided land for the construction of Lady Anne Secondary School. One household participant expressed gratitude to Soysambu for this initiative. However, there is a recurring call for greater support for schools and education, as highlighted in both the open-ended survey questions and the stakeholder workshops.
Specifically, participants made several requests for investments from Soysambu, including:
Allocation of land between Baraka and Soysambu for the construction of a primary school and other public utilities, as well as the relocation of Kiboko Primary School to this land.
Construction of a primary school in Royal Estate.
Installation of ablution blocks in primary schools such as Kapkures, Kambi Turkana, Oldubei, Olesirwa, Kelelwa, and Olepolos.
Establishment of an Early Childhood Education (ECDE) center in Jogoo village, addressing a recognized need from community engagement sessions.
Development of a nursery school in Kiwanja Ndege and Ngatta areas, along with polytechnics and secondary schools.
Implementation of school feeding programs in Ol Jorai Primary School.
Creation of a library in the Mololine area to engage the youth.
Provision of transportation for children commuting to Kiboko Primary.
Furthermore, workshop participants suggested that Soysambu could offer scholarships to the brightest students from primary schools across all areas. Some respondents expressed concerns about the fairness of scholarship provisions, emphasizing the importance of ensuring a fair and transparent process and creating a representative and elected committee from all locations to help screen candidates. A similar process has been established successfully in Ol Pejeta conservancy.
Action: Develop a clear strategy for engaging with schools including infrastructure development, educational content, support for teachers, and bursaries. Lessons can be learned from Lewa, Ol Pejeta, Enonkishu Conservancy and Big Life Foundation.
Health and hospital facilities
Perhaps unsurprisingly, support for health initiatives within the communities was another form of support that was regularly mentioned. During the survey, respondents expressed a collective desire for improved health facilities, including the construction of hospitals, provision of medical equipment, and upgrades to existing dispensaries.
In the Mbaruk area, one in five respondents echoed the need for expanded healthcare infrastructure, including a hospital and a better-equipped dispensary in Echareria. The sentiment was further reinforced during the stakeholder workshops, with participants emphasizing the importance of constructing essential facilities such as a maternity wing, staff houses for health workers, and an outpatient wing in various locations, including Kiungururia.
Similarly, in Oljorai, some respondents stressed the need for improved health facilities in Kampi Turkana and Kapkures: “We need a hospital in Kapkures as women are losing children because a hospital is lacking”. The sentiment was echoed during the stakeholder workshops, where requests for dispensaries at Kampi Turkana and Kapkures, along with staff housing at the Oljorai health center, were highlighted.
While there were not specific requests from respondents in Kiptangwanyi during the survey, during the stakeholder workshops, participants emphasized the importance of equipping the maternity wing at the Elementaita dispensary in Elementaita village.
Action: Develop a clear strategy for engaging with health clinics, dispensaries and schools including infrastructure development and support for health workers. CHASE Africa, is one of the leading NGSO in the region, working with conservation practionores to improve the outcomes of health care in conservation landscapes.
Water Provision Services
The need for reliable access to water was a recurring theme among the communities surveyed. Respondents highlighted the necessity for water infrastructure such as dams and boreholes to address water scarcity, especially during dry seasons.
In the Mbaruk area, a significant portion of respondents emphasized the importance of water infrastructure, including the revival of existing boreholes and the construction of new ones. Participants specifically called for a water tower at Kiungururia and a borehole in Echareria during the stakeholder workshops, indicating the critical need for improved water access for water that passes through through Kiambogo and near cultivated land to Soysambu: “Allow access to the water passing through Kiambogo to [Soysambu].”
Similarly, in Kasambara, participants echoed the sentiment for enhanced water infrastructure, with requests for boreholes at Wamagwathi’s farm and a pipe extension at Kianyeni village, to address water scarcity in the region. In particular, participants called for the existing boreholes near African Forest to be revived.
In Oljorai, a third of those surveyed underscored the necessity for dams or water pans to mitigate water scarcity, particularly during dry weather.
Respondents from Kiptangwanyi also expressed a pressing need for community water provision, with 50% of survey respondents advocating for improved water access. Stakeholder workshops reiterated the importance of constructing water points and providing water pipes in key areas to address water challenges effectively.
Overall, the stakeholder workshops served to emphasize the requests for water distribution infrastructure (e.g. water points at Mwariki C, water pipes in Jogoo village), a mega-dam at Soysambu to help harvest water heading to Elementaita around Maisha poa area, a water pan in Kampi Turkana, and a borehole in Ngatta.
Action: Develop a clear strategy for water provision. Accounting for the supply of water, the trade-offs for livestock and wildlife management, and the roles of WRUA. A consultant, such as Sean Avery, would provide concrete steps forward.
Livestock Management
Livestock management also emerged as a significant concern among the communities surveyed, but particularly among those for whom livestock are one of their most important livelihoods. The map below shows that the second most important livelihood for most households, is livestock, especially in places like Oljorai.
Figure 26: Map of 2nd most important livelihood in surveyed households
Therefore, unsurprisingly, requests and suggestions came primarily from Oljorai, where most of those surveyed sought assistance in multiple aspects of livestock management, including: - access to grazing fields during dry seasons - provision of grass for livestock - livestock management education programs - compensation for losses due to wildlife encounters, - and cessation of harassment by security personnel on herders.
The stakeholder workshops further elucidated the community’s requests, with a majority emphasizing the need for capacity building on improved livestock management, access to grazing areas, hay production (some suggested at Nderit primary school), livestock vaccination, and infrastructure development such as cattle dips (e.g. at Kambi Shule). Participants also highlighted the need for measures to mitigate wildlife-livestock conflict, from Hyaenas in particular, with some people suggesting the use of traps.
A number of respondents in the Mbaruk area also highlighted the need for support in sustainable livestock management, as well as grazing access (they mentioned on “unused land”), education on livestock management, and access to animal vaccination services and artificial insemination. Additionally, participants in Kasambara emphasized the long-standing request for the provision of dairy goats and dairy cattle, underscoring the community’s desire for diversified livestock options.
Action: Engage with rangeland management trainers and implementers such as TruRange, Mara Training Centre, Ol Pejeta, and others to develop a livestock engagement plan and trainings with surrounding communities.
Environment and Sanitation
The preservation of the environment and promotion of sanitation also emerged as key priorities and survey respondents and workshop participants emphasized the importance of addressing environmental issues and implementing sanitation measures to improve community well-being.
Respondents from Mbaruk and Oljorai in particular, suggested that Soysambu could address environmental challenges by: installing sanitation points near highways; providing tree seedlings (also mentioned in Oljorai); and raising awareness about environmental conservation.
Additionally, workshop participants emphasized the importance of fencing and tree planting at Chamuka springs to safeguard natural resources and promote environmental sustainability.
Action: Select key activities from the list provided and begin implementation.
Security
Ensuring the safety and security of residents and their property is important for community well-being. While many respondents from communities within Soysambu expressed satisfaction with the prevailing sense of security (see Figure above), it is evident that this is not the case in other areas.
In Mbaruk, 22% of survey respondents identified the need for additional security measures, specifically requesting assistance from Soysambu in constructing a police post in Murang’a Echereria, Mbaruk, and Mololine villages. This sentiment was further emphasized during the stakeholder workshops, with participants additionally advocating for the establishment of a police post in Royal estate.
These calls were echoed by respondents from Kiptangwanyi who also highlighted the need for administrative offices for the chief and assistant chiefs at the Kiptangwanyi chief’s camp.
Action: Work with local adminstration to prioritise security projects.
Land and Fencing
Land usage and fencing emerged as significant concerns among respondents.
During the survey and stakeholder workshops, a number of people expressed appreciation for Soysambu’s past initiatives, such as selling land to their fathers in Kiambogo.
In Mbaruk, 16% of respondents expressed various preferences regarding land usage within Soysambu. These included desires to purchase land from Soysambu if it were to become available, allocate portions of land for community purposes such as markets, graveyards, and waste disposal sites, and provide land to squatters at affordable rates.
In Soysambu, 35% of respondents suggested initiatives to optimize land usage which included requests for subsidized land allocations for cultivation purposes, setting aside land for vegetable farming, and advocating for the installation of electric fences around residential areas to bolster security measures.
Community representation
Based on the governance section, most people across all locations disagreed that there was sufficient transparency and access to information or equitable benefit sharing . In fact, across all locations, most people felt they were not well informed, didn’t have access to timely information about decision made by Soysambu that would affect them, nor that their communities were sharing information with Soysambu. Unsurprisingly, improved community representation emerged as a key recommendation, with survey respondents and stakeholder workshop participants expressing a desire for greater involvement and communication with Soysambu.
For instance, in Mbaruk, a number of respondents emphasized the importance of clear communication from Soysambu regarding community rules and regulations. Additionally, they advocated for the establishment of quarterly general meetings to facilitate open dialogue and transparency. One respondent requested the election of a community representative to enhance community voice and representation.
Similarly, in Oljorai, respondents underscored the importance of fostering positive relationships between Soysambu and local communities. They emphasized the need for community inclusion in decision-making processes and likewise, they suggested holding regular meetings to facilitate ongoing dialogue and collaboration between Soysambu and the community.
Action: Creation of a community committee, with fair representation of all communities and their membership, including youth and women, and participation in community project and program development could be an important next step.
Harrassment and compensation
In Oljorai, some respondents highlighted instances where individuals gathering firewood experienced perceived harassment. Additionally, there were reports of individuals feeling harassed during law enforcement activities. Concerns were also expressed regarding perceived delays or lack of compensation from the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) for damage caused by wildlife to crops and livestock. These issues were not reported in other surveyed areas.
Action: It will be important for Soysambu to thoroughly investigate these reported incidents to ensure the well-being and safety of community members. This includes development and implementing policies
Further suggestions
Less frequently mentioned suggestions, or those posing potential implementation challenges, include: - Prioritizing employment opportunities for community members within the conservancy, which could be advertised and seleected through a community committee. - Facilitating community participation in game drives to observe wild animals within the Soysambu and better understand the conservation work Soysambu conservancy is conducting.
Full list of requests from communities
Here we have included all the suggestions that were made by survey respondents, or in the stakeholder workshops, into a table format.
Category | Suggestion |
|---|---|
Support for Schools and Education | Allocation of land between Baraka and Soysambu for the construction of a primary school and other public utilities, as well as the relocation of Kiboko Primary School to this land. |
Construction of a primary school in Royal Estate. | |
Installation of ablution blocks in primary schools such as Kapkures, Kambi Turkana, Oldubei, Olesirwa, Kelelwa, and Olepolos. | |
Establishment of an Early Childhood Education (ECDE) center in Jogoo village, addressing a recognized need from community engagement sessions. | |
Development of a nursery school in Kiwanja Ndege and Ngatta areas, along with polytechnics and secondary schools. | |
Implementation of school feeding programs in Ol Jorai Primary School. | |
Creation of a library in the Mololine area to engage the youth. | |
Provision of transportation for children commuting to Kiboko Primary. | |
Offering scholarships to the brightest students from primary schools across all areas. | |
Support for Health and hospital facilities | Construction of hospitals and dispensaries, provision of medical equipment, and upgrades to existing healthcare facilities. |
Establishment of a maternity wing, staff houses for health workers, and outpatient wings. | |
Improvement of health facilities in various locations such as Kampi Turkana and Kapkures. | |
Equipping the maternity wing at the Elementaita dispensary. | |
Water Provision Services | Installation of water infrastructure including boreholes and water towers. |
Construction of dams, boreholes, and water towers. | |
Revival of existing boreholes and extension of water infrastructure. | |
Mitigation of water scarcity through the construction of water pans and pipes. | |
Livestock Management | Access to grazing fields during dry seasons and provision of grass for livestock. |
Education programs on improved livestock management and capacity building. | |
Compensation for losses due to wildlife encounters and cessation of harassment by security personnel on herders. | |
Environment and Sanitation | Installation of sanitation points near highways and provision of tree seedlings. |
Fencing and tree planting at Chamuka springs. | |
Raising awareness about environmental preservation. | |
Security | Construction of police posts in various locations. |
Establishment of administrative offices for local authorities. | |
Land and Fencing | Purchase and allocation of land for community use. |
Provision of land for cultivation and installation of electric fences. | |
Community representation | Clear communication of rules and regulations, and establishment of quarterly general meetings. |
Fostering positive relationships and inclusion of the community in decision-making processes. | |
Harrassment and compensation | Investigation of reported harassment incidents and compensation for wildlife-related damages. |
Further suggestions | Prioritizing employment opportunities for community members within the conservancy and facilitating community participation in game drives. |
Agricultural extension services
In the requests and suggestions from those surveyed and workshop participants, there were a number of calls for education programs to improve livelihoods. For most households, the principal livelihoods are still agriculture based (with Kibarua or livestock for some). Soysambu has already carried out some form of agricultural extension activity through the farmer’s seminar on livestock production. This could be an area that is expanded on to support those in the community who are engaged in smallholder activities.
An extension programme could be designed to promote new methods and solutions to inform smallholders on how to increase production (and income) and become more food secure.
A needs-based assessment would be required for the target community and tracking impact would be a crucial consideration. Changing farming practices and behaviours is a particularly challenging objective in the short-term as behaviours tend to change over longer periods of time and often proof of success of new practices needs to be demonstrated for changes in traditional farming practice to be adopted. As such, this would be a longer-term programme allowing for shifts in both the knowledge and attitudes of the target community with regards to the practices being promoted and actually being implemented. Funding of certain inputs should also be considered for the success of this programme and for the farmers to be able to adopt some of the practices being promoted.
An agricultural extension programme could be rolled out in a number of ways, from inviting interested members of the community to watch videos promoting new and improved farming methods – through to creating demonstration farms to impart knowledge in a more practical manner and allowing for participants to see changes over time.
The tables below set out some examples of how climate smart agriculture could be promoted to the smallholder community. These suggestion aim to increase farmer’s knowledge on farming practices that can improve productivity in crop or livestock agriculture, and how farmers can adapt their practices to accommodate an ever-changing climate.
Theme | Content | Disbursement of information |
|---|---|---|
Soil health | Information sharing on what a soil test is and why it is important to do one e.g. can tell the health of the soil, PH levels, which crops can be grown in your soil and which fertilizer to use. | Practical demonstration - how to carry out a crop test. |
Conservation agriculture | A way of farming to keep nutrients and moisture in the soil. Helps control pests and diseases. Minimum tillage, mulching, crop rotation | Practical demonstration of all 3 activities. |
Soil management | The importance of fertilizer to return nutrients to soil. | Practical demonstration of fertilizer and manure application. |
Theme | Content | Disbursement of information |
|---|---|---|
Planting | Informing participants that maize does not grow well in acidic soils. Soil test can determine this. What can be done if soil is acidic e.g. add lime. | Practical demonstration of how to plant and education session on importance of certified seeds and contingency crops. |
Management | Importance of weeding, fertiliser and when do apply, soil testing (to gauge best fertilizer). | Practical demonstration. |
Pests and diseases | Plant certified seeds, keep farm weed free and rotate crops each season. | Education session e.g videos. |
Storage | The importance of harvesting and storing appropriately e.g. Dry maize thoroughly for 2-3 weeks on tarpaulin in the sun. | Practical demonstration and education on alternative storage methods e.g. Hermetic bags. |
Theme | Content | Disbursement of information |
|---|---|---|
Cows – housing | Importance of good housing and what a cow shed should consist of e.g. Sleeping area, walking area, feeding area, milking place and calf pen. | Practical demonstration. |
Cows – feeding | Ensure good yields with provision of fodder crops, protein supplements (dairy meal, legume plants) along with vitamins and minerals. | Education session e.g. talk from experts or videos. |
Cows (dairy) - fodder | What grasses can be planted directly into the field and creating a nursery for other fodder grasses. | Practical demonstration. |
Cows (dairy) – hay | Good for adapting to the changing climate. | Practical demonstration how and when to cut grass, drying it and storage. |
Cows (dairy) – silage | Planning for the dry season. How to make it and how long it can be stored for. | Practical demonstration on how to make and store silage. |
Theme | Content | Disbursement of information |
|---|---|---|
Rainwater harvesting | How to build a rainwater harvesting system by fixing gutters to roofs and connecting to a tank. | Demonstration on how to create gutters on roofs. |
Water management | Installing a drip irrigation system to save time and money. | Demonstration of drip irrigation system. |
Theme | Content | Disbursement of information |
|---|---|---|
Budgeting | What is it? Why it’s important. | Education session – talk given by an expert or video. |
Loans | Why take a loan e.g. farm inputs. Type of loan e.g. bank/SACCO/Chama. | Education session – talk given by an expert or video. |
Savings | Why save e.g. gets your through poor yields, buying inputs etc. Work out how much you can afford to save, where to put your money e.g. a bank etc. | Education session – talk given by an expert or video. |
Insurance | Why? Changing weather and unexpected losses. How insurance works etc. | Education session – talk given by an expert or video. |
Bibliography
Appendix
Appendix 1 - Sample frame
Location | Village | Estimated No. of HHs | Selected |
|---|---|---|---|
Gilgil | Kikopey | ||
Gilgil | Karura | ||
Gilgil | Kasarani | ||
Kiptangwanyi | Jogoo | 600 | yes |
Kiptangwanyi | Mwariki C | ||
Kiptangwanyi | Elmentaita | 200 | |
Kiptangwanyi | Bombo | 250 | |
Kiptangwanyi | Dam | 150 | |
Kiptangwanyi | Old game | ||
Kiptangwanyi | Miti Mingi | ||
Mbaruk | Muranga | 90 | yes |
Mbaruk | Mbaruk Marura | 100 | |
Mbaruk | Pema | 200 | yes |
Mbaruk | Kiwanja Ndege Mkulima | 5000 | yes |
Mbaruk | Kiambogo | 70 | yes |
Mbaruk | Kahuho | 200 | |
Mbaruk | Mololine | 80 | yes |
Mbaruk | Kasambara | 100 | |
Mbaruk | Kiwanja Ndege | 200 | |
Mbaruk | Leleshwa | 80 | yes |
Mbaruk | Echareria | 300 | yes |
Mbaruk | Mbaruk | 500 | yes |
Oljorai | Oldubey | 260 | yes |
Oljorai | Kelelwa | 282 | yes |
Oljorai | Central Utut | 178 | yes |
Oljorai | Kapkures | 274 | yes |
Oljorai | Elementaita Munyaka | 600 | |
Oljorai | Lokichogio | 400 | |
Oljorai | Kapedo | 189 | yes |
Oljorai | Central hall | 700 | |
Oljorai | Kongasis | ||
Oljorai | Block D | 500 | |
Oljorai | Gema | 400 | |
Oljorai | Kampi shule | 400 | |
Oljorai | Kongasis A | 800 | |
Oljorai | Kongasis B | 1300 | |
Oljorai | Kongasis Centre | 1200 | |
Oljorai | Ngatta | 250 | yes |
Oljorai | Kampi Turkana | 117 | yes |
Soysambu | Head office | 92 | |
Soysambu | Soysambu area | 183 | yes |
Soysambu | Melia Nyeupe/borehole/nginegii | 28 | |
Soysambu | Jolai 1, 2, sleeping warrior, jolai gate | 50 | yes |
Soysambu | Congreve area | 11 |
Appendix 2 - Additional data
Figure 27: Map of second most important household livelihood
Figure 28: Livestock as tropical livestock units, per household
Figure 29: Did the household cultivate crops in the last year
Figure 30: No. of acres cultivated by the household in their location, in the last year
Figure 31: Livestock damaged by wildlife in the last year
Figure 32: Cultivated crops damaged by wildlife in the last year
Social Assessment of Protected Areas (SAPA) approach
The Social Assessment for Protected and Conserved Areas (SAPA), launched in 2014, responded to a need for a standardised, low-cost and relatively simple approach to assessing social impacts of protected or conserved areas (Franks, Small, and Booker 2018).
SAPA is a multi-stakeholder assessment methodology for use by site-level stakeholders. The methodology is based on a standardised process that can be replicated across protected or conserved areas while remaining flexible enough for tailoring to local needs and contexts.
SAPA uses a set of standard assessment questions directly related to social impacts and governance quality. It also includes a process of developing site-specific questions that respond to specific needs of actors.
SAPA can help identify positive and negative social impacts of protected or conserved areas, understand the underlying causes of problems related to governance and identify actions that could improve the situation. The inclusion of a governance and equity assessment in the second edition of SAPA strengthens the results and action planning processes. Governance is distinct from management and pays attention to who defines objectives and how. It also looks at allocation of responsibility and accountability for delivering on these objectives.
The methodology can also be used to establish a baseline for social impacts and their overall contribution to human well-being against which changes can be tracked over time. Therefore, the SAPA approach was chosen, because it meets the requirements of Soysambu Conservancy as they seek to understand social impacts over time, and to listen to feed back from communities living within and surrounding the conservancy.